With the size & speed of today's NHL'er, the game really needs to be opened up. Bigger ice surfaces, bigger than Olympic sized rinks would not only bring the game back to an exciting level, but it would drastically reduce the amount of concussions this league has seen.

Of course, this will take somebody's death to finally see change, still too many Canadians who don't want to hurt hockey's roots. But players lives? Who cares right?

Sammy*

01-30-2004 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13

With the size & speed of today's NHL'er, the game really needs to be opened up. Bigger ice surfaces, bigger than Olympic sized rinks would not only bring the game back to an exciting level, but it would drastically reduce the amount of concussions this league has seen.

Of course, this will take somebody's death to finally see change, still too many Canadians who don't want to hurt hockey's roots. But players lives? Who cares right?

Have you watched very many "regular" games on an Oly sized ice surface? In my opinion, the size of that ice surface is hardly conducive to "exciting" hockey.So , to make the ice surface even bigger would make the game even worse than it is on an Oly sized surface.
Furthurmore, there are going to be injuries no matter how big you make the ice surface, & I dont think that making it bigger would have any appreciable impact. Maybe we should just take out hitting, that would solve the problem.
Lastly, as opposed to your pejorative comment about Canadians, take a look at who owns virtually all the franchises in the NHL. One might say that the size of the ice surface will not be changed cause of those greedy Americans, who of course value $$$ over players lives. That argument probably has more merit than your bigoted statement about Canadians.

edit: btw, I dont agree with that last comment regaring Americans, though it could possibly be accurate concerning owners.

Bluenote13

01-30-2004 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammy

Have you watched very many "regular" games on an Oly sized ice surface? In my opinion, the size of that ice surface is hardly conducive to "exciting" hockey.So , to make the ice surface even bigger would make the game even worse than it is on an Oly sized surface.
Furthurmore, there are going to be injuries no matter how big you make the ice surface, & I dont think that making it bigger would have any appreciable impact. Maybe we should just take out hitting, that would solve the problem.
Lastly, as opposed to your pejorative comment about Canadians, take a look at who owns virtually all the franchises in the NHL. One might say that the size of the ice surface will not be changed cause of those greedy Americans, who of course value $$$ over players lives. That argument probably has more merit than your bigoted statement about Canadians.

First off - Calm down "Sammy".

Secondly, if you read the post correctly you'd see I mentioned the rinks should be bigger than Olympic size. Yeah, you won't see many of your precious open ice hits on that kind of rink, but you would see alot less goalies playing the puck(the bigger ice surface would include more room in the corners and behind the net) allowing offenses to dump it in and have to win pucks along the boards, not from opposing goalies. This keeps the game exciting with offensive chances, hitting would be almost always along the boards, and not at high impact speeds. LESS CONCUSSIONS, not less injuries so to say.

And yes, Canadians would probably be outraged by any changes to 'their' game. Owners have tried many times to change certain things about the game, and have failed most of the time. Only minor changes have been instituted.

Secondly, if you read the post correctly you'd see I mentioned the rinks should be bigger than Olympic size. Yeah, you won't see many of your precious open ice hits on that kind of rink, but you would see alot less goalies playing the puck(the bigger ice surface would include more room in the corners and behind the net) allowing offenses to dump it in and have to win pucks along the boards, not from opposing goalies. This keeps the game exciting with offensive chances, hitting would be almost always along the boards, and not at high impact speeds. LESS CONCUSSIONS, not less injuries so to say.

And yes, Canadians would probably be outraged by any changes to 'their' game. Owners have tried many times to change certain things about the game, and have failed most of the time. Only minor changes have been instituted.

I did see your comment about bigger than Oly size rinks. IMO , making the rink even bigger than Oly sized rinks would make the game even worse than on an Oly sized rink. Imagine playing on a massive pond, the game imo would just be alot slower & less action.
And frankly , the owners coudnt give a crap about Canada, so I hardly think the reasons why some proposed rule changes have not been instituted is because the poor little owners are afraid of the wrath of the big bad Canadians.
Just my .02

Bluenote13

01-30-2004 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammy

I did see your comment about bigger than Oly size rinks. IMO , making the rink even bigger than Oly sized rinks would make the game even worse than on an Oly sized rink. Imagine playing on a massive pond, the game imo would just be alot slower & less action.
And frankly , the owners coudnt give a crap about Canada, so I hardly think the reasons why some proposed rule changes have not been instituted is because the poor little owners are afraid of the wrath of the big bad Canadians.
Just my .02

IMO, it is absolutely RIDICULOUS that all the major sports continue to play on rinks/fields that were used when Men were relative shrimps compared to today's 'enhanced' performers. The size & speed of NHL players today is crazy, and we as the fans are not reaping the benefits of this. Instead we see these bohemoths playing on a small little surface, where in if they take a tenth of a second to look down, they get clobbered and injured for life. You can't sit there and tell me the league is the better for having guys like Lindros, Chara, Bertuzzi, Rob Blake, Pronger playing on the same sized surfaces that guys in the 1950's played on.

kazo

01-30-2004 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13

IMO, it is absolutely RIDICULOUS that all the major sports continue to play on rinks/fields that were used when Men were relative shrimps compared to today's 'enhanced' performers. The size & speed of NHL players today is crazy, and we as the fans are not reaping the benefits of this. Instead we see these bohemoths playing on a small little surface, where in if they take a tenth of a second to look down, they get clobbered and injured for life. You can't sit there and tell me the league is the better for having guys like Lindros, Chara, Bertuzzi, Rob Blake, Pronger playing on the same sized surfaces that guys in the 1950's played on.

Using that logic why aren't football fields bigger than they were 40 years ago. There are way many more injuries in football than hockey.

Hockey players have far less respect for each other than they used to. That results in more injuries on the ice than anything else.

Sammy*

01-30-2004 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13

IMO, it is absolutely RIDICULOUS that all the major sports continue to play on rinks/fields that were used when Men were relative shrimps compared to today's 'enhanced' performers. The size & speed of NHL players today is crazy, and we as the fans are not reaping the benefits of this. Instead we see these bohemoths playing on a small little surface, where in if they take a tenth of a second to look down, they get clobbered and injured for life. You can't sit there and tell me the league is the better for having guys like Lindros, Chara, Bertuzzi, Rob Blake, Pronger playing on the same sized surfaces that guys in the 1950's played on.

Oh, I agree totally, but imo somewher between Oly sized rinks & the rinks we have today is a better soloution.

Sammy*

01-30-2004 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazo

Using that logic why aren't football fields bigger than they were 40 years ago. There are way many more injuries in football than hockey.

Hockey players have far less respect for each other than they used to. That results in more injuries on the ice than anything else.

I disagree. IMO , its the size & speed & physical attributes of the players, combined with superior equipment (which contributes to the speed & injuries as the equipment is alot harder & bigger).

kazo

01-30-2004 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammy

I disagree. IMO , its the size & speed & physical attributes of the players, combined with superior equipment (which contributes to the speed & injuries as the equipment is alot harder & bigger).

So you don't think all of the high sticking that is so prevalent in the game today has anything to do with injuries? That part of the game can be changed. But how do you eliminate injuries that result from hard, clean body contact? Outlaw all body contact? Make the rinks so big that players have no chance of catching up with one another? IMO, you're trying to take those things out of the game that fans find most appealing.

Apply the rules that are in place and leave the game alone.

Sammy*

01-30-2004 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazo

So you don't think all of the high sticking that is so prevalent in the game today has anything to do with injuries? That part of the game can be changed. But how do you eliminate injuries that result from hard, clean body contact? Outlaw all body contact? Make the rinks so big that players have no chance of catching up with one another? IMO, you're trying to take those things out of the game that fans find most appealing.

Apply the rules that are in place and leave the game alone.

As you see, I dont like the Oly size rink. I prefer something in between Oly & what we have now.
I dont think the players are that much less respectful., I think the speed ,size & strength of players & the lightness of equipment ( including sticks ) has far more to do with injuries, including high sticking.

Bluenote13

01-30-2004 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazo

Using that logic why aren't football fields bigger than they were 40 years ago. There are way many more injuries in football than hockey.

Hockey players have far less respect for each other than they used to. That results in more injuries on the ice than anything else.

I don't think the two sports are comparable.

The one area Footbal does beat hockey though is penalties. They call almost everything they see in Football, but in hockey the refs let alot of infractions go. That I agree with you on. But how long have fans & team officials called for the league to take action??? Obviously they don't want to call the blatant interference.....why is that?

kazo

01-30-2004 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammy

As you see, I dont like the Oly size rink. I prefer something in between Oly & what we have now.
I dont think the players are that much less respectful., I think the speed ,size & strength of players & the lightness of equipment ( including sticks ) has far more to do with injuries, including high sticking.

High sticking is probably the most common infraction in the game today. How many times do you see a player try to hook an opponent under the arm, misses, and his stick is raked across the other guy's face. Instead of using body contact to check an opponent, it seems it's easier for a lot of players to simply use the stick.

Edge

01-30-2004 04:31 PM

bigger ice won't help because the same problems are happening in europe right now.

The REAL problem is they arent calling any penalties.

the spent so much time enforcing that stupid instigator rule that they forgot how to call real penalties.

mark my words, you call the game the way it is supposed to be called and you get scoring up to a much better level. not the overblown offense of the 80's, but more on par with where it should be.

Bluenote13

01-30-2004 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge

bigger ice won't help because the same problems are happening in europe right now.

The REAL problem is they arent calling any penalties.

the spent so much time enforcing that stupid instigator rule that they forgot how to call real penalties.

mark my words, you call the game the way it is supposed to be called and you get scoring up to a much better level. not the overblown offense of the 80's, but more on par with where it should be.

Yes obstruction should be called. How long do fans have to wait for this to happen though??? How many years has it been, almost 10???

Edge

01-30-2004 05:37 PM

obstruction is a big part of it. the other penalties as well.

i went into length about this in another post but the rules need to be enforced.

people can blame size, the trap, whatever they want, but calling penalties will make a huge difference.

Bluenote13

01-30-2004 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge

obstruction is a big part of it. the other penalties as well.

i went into length about this in another post but the rules need to be enforced.

people can blame size, the trap, whatever they want, but calling penalties will make a huge difference.

Again, why are they not being enforced???

RushingRocket

01-30-2004 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge

obstruction is a big part of it. the other penalties as well.

i went into length about this in another post but the rules need to be enforced.

people can blame size, the trap, whatever they want, but calling penalties will make a huge difference.

Edge, I completely agree with you...
I'd like your opinion on this one though, and for that matter everyone else's. Kariya is always outspoken about two things about today's game, one, is the calling of penalties, the other is a problem which some people have tried to address by arguing for olympic sized rinks, which, imo, would never fly because owners would lose revenue because the arenas would have less seat room, so less tickets...
But Kariya's complaint is the shrinking of the neutral zone to create more room behind the net (I believe it's by a total of a foot and a half on each size). The league did it in the mid-nineties to actually increase scoring so big players could get behind the net easier and play the puck more back there...but Kariya thinks its only resulted in the rise and success of systems like the trap, which work better in a shrunk nuetral zone where smaller, skilled players get slowed down and can't fly through as quickly and gain speed...
What do you think of this assessment? Should the league change it back? Would it help at all?

kazo

01-30-2004 06:50 PM

You know, I've almost come to the conclusion that most players don't know how to play the game anymore without high sticking, obstruction, or diving. Speaking of diving, I would love to see the NHL call that a 2 + 10 penalty. Same for the fake glove dropping.

Did anybody see Don Cherry on HNIC last week? He's convinced that face shields will be mandatory in 2-3 years. Seems it's easier for a trailing player to hook a player's arm than it is to skate a bit harder and rub that player out. If a guy misses the arm hook, the stick rides up into his opponents face. In Joe Thornton's first game back he had three black streaks across his shield, the result of high sticks.

Players have learned how to take lazy shortcuts rather than playing hard.

tony

01-30-2004 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazo

You know, I've almost come to the conclusion that most players don't know how to play the game anymore without high sticking, obstruction, or diving. Speaking of diving, I would love to see the NHL call that a 2 + 10 penalty. Same for the fake glove dropping.

Did anybody see Don Cherry on HNIC last week? He's convinced that face shields will be mandatory in 2-3 years. Seems it's easier for a trailing player to hook a player's arm than it is to skate a bit harder and rub that player out. If a guy misses the arm hook, the stick rides up into his opponents face. In Joe Thornton's first game back he had three black streaks across his shield, the result of high sticks.

Players have learned how to take lazy shortcuts rather than playing hard.

cherry thought it was a bad idea to have shields. he thought players would even less responsible with their sticks. thornton wore a bird cage in his first game back not a full shield. unless of course he switched mid game.

kazo

01-30-2004 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony

cherry thought it was a bad idea to have shields. he thought players would even less responsible with their sticks. thornton wore a bird cage in his first game back not a full shield. unless of course he switched mid game.

I think Thornton's shield was a combo cage and visor.

In retrospect Cherry was probably right. Players are less responsible for their actions and have less respect for their opponents.

tony

01-30-2004 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony

cherry thought it was a bad idea to have shields. he thought players would be even less responsible with their sticks. thornton wore a bird cage in his first game back not a full shield. unless of course he switched mid game.

GKJ

01-30-2004 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13

With the size & speed of today's NHL'er, the game really needs to be opened up. Bigger ice surfaces, bigger than Olympic sized rinks would not only bring the game back to an exciting level, but it would drastically reduce the amount of concussions this league has seen.

and would drastically drive up costs. costs to renovate arenas to support the larger ice surface. costs to take out the expensive seats. it's not fiscally possible